Linda Stamato’s Confused Understanding of Church/State Separation

Christians, please listen. There is no national religion in America, asserts New Jersey Star-Ledger Guest Columnist Linda Stamato, forgetting it.

To begin with, Stamato identifies America as a “constitutional democracy.” It most certainly is not. America, according to the Founders, is a constitutional republic. In the whole of their defense of the new 1787 Constitution in the Federalist Papers, Jay, Hamilton, and Madison make repeated references to the republican principles underpinning the document, not democratic principles. 

The constitutional republic that the Founders created is a system of limited government whose elected leaders are constitutionally bound to law- and policy-making rooted in the republican principles of protecting individual liberty. A democracy prioritizes elections. The difference is stark and crucial.

Stamato goes on to remind us that America has a secular government. That is true. But what does “secular” actually mean? Stamato clearly doesn’t get it. She seems to think that secular means forbidding traditional religion in governmental functions. But secularism is broader than that.

A truly secular government does not promote any belief system, religious or non-religious. She complains that “the high court has been showing a preference for one faith over others.” That is clearly wrong. But neither should the court promote non-faith beliefs. She seems to equate secularism with non-religious “rational” beliefs. But secularism, properly understood, no more promotes atheism than it does Christianity.

Let us review two examples she cites to “prove” that the church/state doctrine was violated by the Supreme Court. She writes:

[T]he high court used the religion clauses to privilege mostly mainstream Christian beliefs. It allowed a coach to openly pray on a school athletic field (Kennedy v Bermerton) and the use of public funds for private schools (Carson v Makin).

But these cases are diametrically opposed. In the Kennedy case, a coach, acting in his capacity as a public school employee, and at a public school function, led a prayer service on the football field in the middle of the function. This amounted to a state sanction of religion, a clear violation of the First Amendment. But the SCOTUS wrongly ruled for the coach.

In the Carson case, Maine parents sought to use a government education voucher available to families living in districts that run no traditional public schools. But the program denies money to parents who choose religious schools. This restriction clearly privileges non-religious parents, which is contrary to secularism. In this case, the Court rightly ruled that any state program that provides taxpayer funds to parents for private schools cannot discriminate against religious parents. This case was framed as “using public funds at religious schools” when in fact it is the private parents, not the state, who are actually spending the funds. Keep in mind that religious parents are taxpayers, too. If taxpayer funds are made available to parents for private education, religious parents have as much right to choose religious schools as other parents have to choose non-religious schools. By the logic of Stamato and the discriminatory Maine law that was overturned, Social Security payouts should be barred from being used to support the recipients’ houses of worship or other religious purposes. After all, Social Security is as much “public funds” as education vouchers. But with vouchers, as with Social Security, the funds are intended to be spent by the recipient according to the recipient’s choice, not the state’s.

Stamato rightly observes that the government should not favor any religion over other religions. But neither should it favor non-religions. A truly secular government does not favor any belief system, religious, agnostic, or atheistic. The Maine voucher system favored non-religion over religion, which violates secular principles. 

Related Reading:

SCOTUS Attacks Religious Freedom

My Commentary On State/Church Separation—a discussion regarding Thomas Hart’s New Jersey Star-Ledger op-ed What's hard to understand about "separation"?

America; Democracy or Republic or Both--Why it Matters

Separation of Church (or Education) and State

Freedom Of Religion Demands Freedom From Religion, my article in The Objective Standard

RELATED: What Does Freedom From Religion Actually Mean in Practice?

To Keep Government Out of Religion, Keep Religion Out of Government

On This Veterans Day, Remember the Productive Americans Who Support the Greatest Military in History

This is the time of year that America rightly salutes, and gives thanks to, our military veterans who have protected this nation from foreign enemies for more than two centuries. I join in that celebration. My thoughts about them are conveyed in my Memorial Day tribute, and need no restatement here, except to reiterate the essence of that post:

The highest tribute I can pay to our veterans is to say that they were cut from the mold of the Founding Fathers; that they did not set out to die for their country but rather that they set out to fight for that radical set of ideals that is the United States of America.

But America’s veterans are not the whole story. So, I’d like to use this Veterans Day post to acknowledge the unsung hero of America’s military prowess, the productive American citizen. No military as strong and as competent as America’s can exist in a vacuum. It requires something else - something indispensable – a great economy.

America's economy, historically the most productive the world has ever seen, is the foundation that supports our military personnel. American taxpayers pay trillions of dollars. American defense contractors invest in and produce the most advanced weaponry in the world, weaponry that American soldiers rely upon to do their jobs and stay alive. American technology produces the high tech means for our intelligence community to gather the information our soldiers need to keep track of the enemy.

What enabled the creation of the economic powerhouse that enabled the creation of our military powerhouse? What is the foundation of that foundation?

In 1776, the Founders of this nation signed the Declaration of Independence, which sanctioned the individual to egoistically pursue his happiness in support of his life, by guaranteeing him a government that protected his unalienable individual rights – his liberty – to act upon his own reasoning mind. That short document unleashed the power of the human mind, possessed individually by every person. The result was an unprecedented explosion of productiveness leading to exploding general prosperity and a standard of living unimaginable by the wealthiest noblemen of centuries past. The cause of that progress is simple: the unleashing of every individual to self-interestedly strive to make his own life the best it can be, by his own effort, in voluntary trade with others, free from the coercive interference of his fellow man, including the government. Another name for this social statement—free market capitalism. America was built not by sacrifice, as it is fashionable to assume, but by personal achievement, fueled by the personal pursuit of happiness, unleashed by individual liberty.

America’s response to the threat of the Axis powers at the onset of World War II demonstrates this incredible power behind America’s military power—American free, private enterprise. If you’ve ever visited the National World War II Museum in New Orleans, you’d be struck—I know I was—by the section that displays the array of private, profit-seeking companies that rose to meet the threat posed by Germany, Italy, and Japan. Companies from Boeing and Caterpillar to Harley Davidson and the Mars Candy Company converted their consumer-oriented production facilities to produce for the war to defend America. Dozens of household names are profiled in the display, and undoubtedly far more smaller companies labored anonymously in support of the war effort.

Germany’s Hitler was said to have ridiculed America as soft, because America was good at making consumer goods like razor blades and washing machines, but not military hardware like aircraft. This was mentioned in a fantastic film narrated by Tom Hanks titled Beyond All Boundaries, presented by the museum. Indeed, charts on display at the museum showed that, in 1939, America’s military was utterly dwarfed not only by the cumulative size of the Axis powers Germany, Italy, and Japan, but in comparison to those countries individually as well. But just a few short years later, America’s military dwarfed all three combined, as America’s industrial might turned its focus from producing consumer goods to producing for the American military. Hitler obviously underestimated what can happen when a free enterprise nation, which only wants to live in peace, freedom and prosperity, is threatened by tyrannical aggression.

Tyranny, as the history of WW II demonstrates—and as Germany, Italy, and Japan learned the hard way— is no match for a free market capitalist nation when that nation is aroused to turn its industrial might to self-defense. America won not only because of the bravery and skill of its soldiers, but in no small measure because America simply out-produced—in quantity and technological might—the enemy. Not only did America rearm amazingly fast, it did so even while rearming Britain and supplying arms to Russia, China, and other nations battling against the Axis powers. As the museum’s website explains:

Total war meant that all levels of the economy and all segments of society dedicated themselves to victory. FDR urged Americans to join the war effort by “out-producing and overwhelming the enemy.” While scarcity, rationing, and shortages became regular topics of conversation, so too did talk of duty, patriotism, unity, and victory. The United States, which had the world’s 18th largest military in 1939, mobilized itself for total war production almost overnight once the nation entered the war. The immediate conversion of peacetime industries into war production facilities involved companies of all sizes and types. Toy companies began to manufacture compasses. Typewriter companies made rifles and piano factories produced airplane motors. The Ford Motor Company ceased producing cars and began turning out tanks and bombers. And behind each soldier stood hundreds of civilian workers making everything an army needs to fight around the globe. The Depression was over. Full employment was a reality and confidence in victory was strong.

From 1940 until the Japanese surrender, the United States produced more than 300,000 aircraft, 86,000 tanks, and 12.5 million rifles. Its shipyards were just as productive, building 107 aircraft carriers, 352 destroyers, and 35 million tons of merchant shipping. The US also supplied a majority of war materials for its Allied partners. By 1945, the U.S. had produced more than twice the war supplies of Germany, Italy, and Japan combined.

If Hitler underestimated America, some in Japan, it seems, were more trepidatious. As Japan’s political leadership confidently prepared for war with America, Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto soberly warned:

Should hostilities once break out between Japan and the United States, it would not be enough that we take Guam and the Philippines, nor even Hawaii and San Francisco. To make victory certain, we would have to march into Washington and dictate the terms of peace in the White House. I wonder if our politicians (who speak so lightly of a Japanese-American war) have confidence as to the final outcome and are prepared to make the necessary sacrifices.

After his nation's sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, Yamamoto was said to have uttered, “I fear all we have done today is to awaken a great, sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.”

Indeed, from a starting point of 18th largest military, America had, as FDR envisioned and as Yamamoto feared, out-produced and overwhelmed the enemy. So, let’s celebrate, along with the brave contributions of our vets, the productive American of all income levels—the CEOs, entrepreneurs, innovators, scientists and inventors, workers, investors—and the resultant industrial powerhouse upon whose shoulders our military might stands. Let’s celebrate the individual pursuit of happiness that is the fuel for that American strength. Let’s celebrate productive Americans’ willingness to pay for, build, and support the military whose job it is to protect his pursuit of the good life.

Today, the foundation of America’s economic and military might is under intense attack by those who would “fundamentally change America”—a change that, in actuality, has been going on for decades. Let’s stand up and reject that “change” from liberty to tyranny, and from economic freedom to central planning, and instead renew our allegiance to the Founding Fathers, who engineered a change from tyranny to liberty. The best tribute one can give to our military veterans is to vow to fight for the rediscovery and reinstatement of the ideals that this country stands for: the supreme value of the individual human being, his freedom, and a government whose sole duty is to protect his right to live and prosper for his own sake.

Because that is what American veterans fought for.

Happy Veterans Day!!

-Mike LaFerrara

Related:

Atlas Shrugged – America's Second Declaration of Independence

Freedom's Forge: How American Business Produced Victory in World War II

The Military Protects Our Borders. Defending Freedom is up to We, the People--as Activist Individuals

Related Viewing:

Why a Free Man Fights—Lt. Col. Scott McDonald, USMC

QUORA: ‘What further proof do climate deniers need?’

 QUORA: ‘What further proof do climate deniers need?’

I posted this answer:

Proof won’t convince the actual “climate deniers,” because facts don’t matter to them.

There is a mountain of evidence and of analysis by a deep, broad bench of experts, drawing on decades of research of both private and governmental sources, that refutes the deniers’ argument that a climate emergency is imminent (or happening already) and that mankind faces an existential crisis that demands the immediate abandonment of the main energy driver of human civilization, fossil fuels.

Yet the climate hucksters in the political, media, and renewable energy industries who keep peddling their “climate emergency” witch doctory keep denying the full picture for their own self-serving purposes. The terms climate emergency, and the alternate climate crisis, are in themselves logically incoherent terms.* The dissenting and objective view is that warming is happening, is in part caused by human activity, has positive and negative effects, but is mild and manageable. No totalitarian "unprecedented transitions in all aspects of society" need be forced on us, as the UN claims. The objective view holds that climate change has not yet led to meaningful negative consequences, but may present problems in the future. But it is a long term, that is decades and centuries, issue. The best way forward, therefore, is to avoid dramatic, risky short-term disruption and instead pursue pro-liberty (i.e. Capitalist) policies that lead to more prosperity and innovation, the only path to dealing with potential increases in weather extremes while promoting prosperity climate resiliency. 

There is a principle that guides medical practice; “First, do no harm.” That principle should be applied to the issue of climate change. Humans can continue to flourish while continuing to master negative effects of climate change, whether natural or man-induced. Precipitating a massive life-crushing energy crisis is a “first, do harm” utopian strategy.

The facts are readily available and made accessible to the non-expert public by better thinkers, such as Bjorn Lomborg, Ronald Bailey, Alex Epstein, Roger Pielke Jr., Steven Koonan, Patrick Moore, Robert Bryce, and Michael Schellenberger, to name just a few. 

The “climate denier” charge is usually used to smear the people who reject the climate catastrophist narrative and related statist political agenda. But the alarmists who call for drastic immediate action to head off some imagined “climate emergency” regardless of the affect on human lives are the real “climate deniers”—or, to be more precise, people who disregard the full context of climate and the actual evidence. They ignore the true state regarding current climate, which can only be understood in the context of Earth’s climate history. They take on faith what the biased political and media elites tell them “the science” says, but disregard what the science actually reveals.  

My advice to the climate catastrophists is to start thinking about climate. Get all of the facts. The real climate deniers are the alarmists, not the dissenters they accuse of being deniers. To the people who pose a question like “What further proof do climate deniers need?,'' ask yourself; What are the alleged “deniers” saying that the alarmist thought leaders don’t want you to hear? You owe it to yourself to learn. Listen to all of the perspectives and opinions, including opposing views, observe the world around you objectively, and make up your own mind. As a climate thinker, I concluded that human progress, and the freedom that makes it possible, not regression into authoritarian central economic planning, is the best way forward. As Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore says in his highly informative book, “Let’s hope real science and reason prevail against the current epidemic of ideology, misinformation, and fear.” (p. 160)

* [Climate is a long term average of weather data taken over decades or centuries. Climate is not real. It is a mathematical abstraction. How can climate possibly be an emergency? An emergency is “a sudden, urgent, usually unexpected occurrence or occasion requiring immediate action.” There is nothing sudden about a changing climate.]

Related Reading:

Who is the Real ‘Science Denier’?

Anti-Concept ‘Science Denier’ Exposes Climate Witch Doctors’ Fear of Rational Counter-Argumentation

O'Malley the Climate Witch Doctor

‘Climate Denier’: The Leitmotif of the Climate Propagandist

On Trump and Government Scientists

Ad Hominem No Substitute for Reasoned Criticism

Bonnie Watson Coleman and Analilia Mejia: Another Failed Defense of Abortion Rights

Can collectivists defend abortion rights? An emphatic no. Why? Because rights are individual, and can only be defended on individualist grounds.

Which brings me to A fight for abortion rights is a fight for democracy, published as a guest column in the New Jersey Star-Ledger by U.S. Representative Bonnie Watson Coleman and democracy activist Analilia Mejia. 

Right off the bat, the title tells us that Coleman and Mejia are on the wrong premise about rights. Properly understood, rights are immune to democracy. They cannot be granted or rescinded by any vote, election, or elected representative. Rights are inalienable, or they are not rights. Looking further into the op-ed, we’ll see that the title is no aberration. From here on, all italics are mine:

What does freedom truly mean if we do not have ownership over our bodies? What democracy can we speak of?

The first sentence is spot-on, if you interpret “we” and “our '' as a collection of individuals. Individual freedom most certainly begins with ownership of one’s body. But the second sentence repudiates that critical premise, destroying the essence of what American freedom truly means.

As we look ahead to the midterm elections, our right to reproductive freedom and bodily autonomy hangs in the balance – a human right is now in the hands of individual states and lawmakers’ whims.

“Human right” is a collectivist term. Rights cannot belong to any group. The term human right infers that rights belong to the species human. But genuine rights protect the individual against the collective, be it the race, proletariat, society, or the species. Hence, individual rights. Abortion is an individual right, not a human right--and the distinction matters. But that’s not how Coleman and Mejia see it.

It’s clear that to protect and expand abortion access is to take a stand for the health and prosperity of our communities and generations to come. We are two women who think about the power of democracy often. In a functional democracy, the will of the people defines our leadership, and our laws, and reflects our collective values as a nation.

It’s clear that these two woman believe that abortion rights should be at the mercy of our communities, future generations, the power of democracy, the will of the people, and our collective values. What’s missing from this litany of collectives? The sanctity and autonomy of the individual, both mind and body.

The absurdity of defending an inalienable individual right on collectivist grounds becomes clear in the next excerpt:

When the vast majority of Americans want to safeguard our right to abortion, yet our elected leadership and the highest court in the land sides with an extreme right-wing minority and puts our health at risk, American democracy is in peril. And we must resist and fight back against this harmful agenda. 

What defines “the will of the people” if not election outcomes? Yet somehow, “our elected leadership and the highest court in the land” does not represent the will of the people if it is “an extreme right-wing,” even though these right-wing elected officials are elected and Supreme Court justices are nominated and confirmed by elected representatives. The absurdity comes down to, to fight for abortion rights, we must fight for democracy by fighting against democracy!

An attack on abortion is an attack on our humanity and democracy itself.

The right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy, like all rights, is certainly part of our humanity, individually speaking. But that requires a fight against the power of democracy. The deep irony is apparently lost on these two women that Roe protected abortion rights precisely because it took abortion rights out of the realm of “the will of the people”—democracy. The Dodd decision, in overturning Roe, gave it back to democracy. If Coleman and Mejia truly cared about abortion rights, they would be fighting against the power of democracy to violate individual rights.

Make sure that you are registered to vote in the midterm elections and research your candidates to be certain they will fight for your bodily autonomy and your abortion rights. Make your voice heard to expand the Court so the most powerful lawmakers in the land reflect and protect the will of the people.

In a free society based on individual rights, rights do not depend on the most powerful lawmakers in the land nor on the will of the people. No matter how many justices you add to the Supreme Court, you will never truly protect individual rights, including abortion rights, unless the principle of the inalienability individual rights is the standard for all high court decisions. Yet not once does the word individual appear in this op-ed. You cannot fight for abortion rights and for democracy. It’s one or the other.

The American Left’s worldview is fundamentally rooted in collectivism. It cannot let go of its tribal orientation even in the face of the Conservatives’ democracy-oriented attack on abortion rights. Socialists at heart, the Left is hopelessly incapable of defending abortion rights. To do so would require abandoning collectivism, and by extension socialism that rests on the collectivist foundation.Don’t hold your breath waiting for that day. 

Related Reading:

Right to Abortion vs. the "Right" to Abortion Services

In SCOTUS’ Draft Opinion Overturning Roe Abortion Ruling: Double Standards of Left and Right Exposed

Rights vs. Privileges

Jasmine Winters Double Standard on Abortion ‘Access’ Undercuts Abortion Rights

Defending Reproductive Rights Depends Upon Upholding All Rights

America; Democracy or Republic or Both--Why it Matters

Karin Price Mueller’s Disappointingly Biased de-Regulation Report

Karin Price Mueller is an advice reporter for NJ.com. Her specialty is personal money and consumer issues. I have generally found her columns to be interesting, informative, and fair.

 

But some years ago Mueller abandoned her objectivity in her New Jersey Star-Ledger column Five things that have changed for consumers under President Trump. Here is her introductory paragraphs:

Every president brings change. Laws change. Regulations change. The direction of the country changes.

That’s what happens.

But drop your political lens for a moment.

Think consumer protection. What happens if you’ve been wronged by a business? What if laws and regulations don’t protect you and your wallet?

That’s what consumer advocates say is happening under the Trump administration. They’re alarmed by a cavalcade of changes they say leave the little guy behind while Wall Street and big corporations gain advantage.

Apparently, we’re asked to “drop your political lens” so we can view this article through Mueller’s—and the Star-Ledger’s—political lens.

Throughout the entire article not one quote from the people who are instituting these regulatory relaxations. All you get are quotes from a cavalcade of “consumer protection” or “public interest”—that is, biased against business—activist groups. 

I posted these comments (which are no longer published online):

This is political bias through and through. We’re getting an “analysis” of the deregulatory actions strictly from a statist “political lens.” If consumers need “protection” from business, what about protection from our “protectors”--that is, from politicians’ regulatory dictates? Where are the opposing arguments to the “expert” opinions expressed here? Where is the defense of freedom of consumer choice? Catchphrases like “predatory for-profit colleges” are indicative of propagandistic demagoguery, not fair reporting. 

Are there no valid arguments in favor of the deregulatory actions singled out here? I think Mueller has undermined her credibility with this unbalanced column. 

Related Reading:

Finally, Some Positive Recognition for the Statists' Favorite Whipping Boy, Wall Street

The ‘Wild West’ of Government Regulation Caused the 2008 Financial Meltdown

Where Does Valid Law End and Regulation Begin?

The Koch Brothers and the Nature of Government Regulation

"Regulating" Business - the Good and the Bad

Who to Trust More: The GOP Deregulationists or the Statists

Economic Egalitarianism Leads Directly to Racist Policies in NJ

The dangerous myth that wealth inequality, as such, is a injustice is the rationale for proposed racist law in New Jersey. 

In N.J. must ‘repair the harm’ of huge wealth gap between white and Black families, advocates say, Susan K. Livio reports:

The state Assembly Community Development and Affairs Committee met at the Statehouse in Trenton to hear testimony based on the report: “Making the Two New Jerseys One: Closing the $300,000 racial wealth gap in the Garden State.”

The committee focussed on three pieces of legislation:

One bill, A1519, would make it easier for real estate appraisers to lose their license if they caught [sic] scaling down property evaluation based on race, creed or national origin. 

Obviously, discrimination based on race, creed or national origin is evil. But how does one distinguish between appraisals based on legitimate economic criteria and one infused with personal bigotry. In today’s culture, with its extreme intolerance for bigotry, real estate appraisers are highly unlikely to openly admit that they are slanting their appraisals based on race, creed, or national origin. So how do licensing boards go about determining if bigotry is involved?  

This looks like a license to frivolously sue, and coerce higher appraisal values based on fear of lawsuits, enriching existing homeowners/sellers on paper, at the expense of buyers overpaying. How is it good to scale up property evaluation based on race, creed or national origin, for fear of getting accused of scaling down property evaluation based on race, creed or national origin? How is that fair to buyers, who will pay above-market prices for homes? How is that fair to sellers, if they believe their net worth to be higher than actuality?

Another bill, A1579, would allocate $70 million to launch a Baby Bond Account Program, which would invest $2,000 in a state-managed fund for every child born to a family that earns no more than 200% of the poverty level. A family of four earning no more than $27,740 a year would qualify, based on federal poverty rules.

The third bill, A938, sponsored by Sumter, would create a New Jersey Reparations Task Force. The 11-person body would hold hearings and write a report that would “examine the extent to which the State of New Jersey and the federal government prevented, opposed, or restricted efforts of former enslaved persons and their descendants who are considered United States’ citizens to economically thrive upon the ending of slavery.”

After documenting wealth disparities between “races”, the article says:

These inequities stem from slavery and generations-old systemic policies and practices, such as “redlining” or steering Black people away from buying in white communities, and restrictive housing covenants that barred Black people from ownership, she said.

There is no question that past racist government policies were horrible. It may even be plausible that some lingering effects of those policies, which had hindered the economic advancement of blacks, are responsible for part of today’s wealth gap. But those laws, Jim Crow, ended almost 60 years ago. It’s hard to imagine that, after so much time much of the statistical gap stems from generations-old system policies and practices, let alone centuries-old slavery. My wife and I married in 1972. Neither of us got one iota of a financial head start from our parents. We are not wealthy. But we are comfortable in our retirement. We built our wealth through work and thrift. If there is a gap compared to some hypothetical black couple, how is that an inequity stemming from long-ago injustices?

As to the racist-inspired Baby Bond Account Program, how is it equitable to reward or not reward 18 year-olds with a Baby Bond windfall based on what their parents earned in the year they were born? And as to slave reparations, how is it fair to hand a windfall to people who were not victims of past injustices, paid for by people who were not culpable for those long-ago injustices? 

Another bill not directly related to wealth inequality is also on the legislative agenda. In White men dominate most N.J. government boards. This bill aims to change that.by  Susan K. Livio and Kelly Heyboer (NJ Advance Media for NJ.com) report:

State boards and commissions that collectively control billions of dollars and make decisions affecting everyday life in New Jersey must include more women and minorities, under a bill approved by state Senate committee Monday.

Judging people by skin color or gender, rather than merit, experience, and character, is both racist and sexist. How is that just?

All of these bills are not about compensating actual victims of unjust government policies. In fact, not one individual victim, backed by evidence, was even identified. These initiatives are collectivist, racist, in some measure sexist, and motivated by economic egalitarianism—an axis of philosophical evil.

History is settled. What happened, happened. It can’t be changed. The practice of using unchangeable history as a weapon to impose new injustices on innocent people who were not part of that history, through revenge discrimination based on color or sex, to favor non-victims who were not part of that history, is not the sort of actions that civilized societies that supposedly value individual sovereignty and rights and justice for all should tolerate.

These initiatives highlight the danger of elevating a non-issue into a big problem. Apparently, the statists are losing confidence in their “historical injustice” rationalizations for socialist agendas. So they are turning to wealth inequalities. But egalitarianism is the greatest collectivist evil, and is no more a justification for racist policies than history.

Related Reading:

NJ Governor Murphy’s COVID-19 Double Standard Toward the Demonstrators

The Racism of the ‘Anti-Racists’: NJ Governor Murphy’s Strange and Discriminatory ‘Baby Bonds’ Scheme

NJ Turns its Back on the 14th Amendment – and History

Beneath the Title IX Controversy

Equal Is Unfair: America's Misguided Fight Against Income Inequality by Don Watkins and Yaron Brook